Every year I give late night remarks at Phreaknic in Nashville, TN, usually about politics and civil liberties. As this convention is also a party, the tradition has evolved into a "drunken rant" in which I'm expected to be intoxicated and people actually bring alcohol for me to drink while I'm speaking. While it makes for good fun, by the end of the talk I'm usually not so good at answering questions that people have. Thinking back on last nights remarks, there are a couple of questions that I think I could have responded to more clearly.

First, Hardwarez asked me why I didn't vote for Romney. I prattled off something about "47%" but it wasn't a good answer to his question.

By 2012 it was clear that Obama hadn't done much to support civil liberties while in office, in spite of all of the statements that he had made over the years to the contrary. He did visibly order the military to stop torturing detainees. Furthermore, based on the information that was available at the time of the election, I thought that Obama had at least not continued to engage in the same sins that the Bush administration had engaged in. This wasn't enough to make me a big Obama fan, but on the balance he appeared to be a better friend to civil liberties that Romney.

Romney has called for suspicionless surveillance of muslims, on account of their religion, as well as foreign exchange students. He explicitly endorsed illegal wiretapping by the Bush Administration. His campaign privately planned to reverse the one useful thing that Obama had accomplished - they planned to rescind the prohibition on torture. Furthermore, they also announced that they would increase enforcement of obscenity laws.

As someone who is concerned about civil liberties, Romney's campaign was not attractive.

Now, in light of what Edward Snowden has revealed, it is clear that my reasons for support Obama in 2012 have largely been invalidated. Obama has actually committed at least two of the three civil liberties sins that I accused Bush of committing in the blog post that I wrote prior to the 2012 election. He has engaged in illegal surveillance and promoted expansive interpretations of the PATRIOT Act that stretch it to the breaking point. Whats worse, he did these things in spite of having campaigned on the idea that he was a friend of civil liberties. At least with Romney, you knew what you were going to get.

While there are some Republicans who support civil liberties, those views seem to be in the minority in that party. Furthermore, while mainstream Democrats claim to support civil liberties, in light of what has happened, it is not possible to take those claims credibly any more. You now have to assume Democrats are lying about that. I do not think that I will be voting for a Presidential candidate from either party in the future.

This brings me to the other remark someone made that I should have responded to more clearly. Someone said "don't vote." I think that many people share that point of view - as there is no mainstream political candidate that is acceptable, disengagement from the whole process is an attractive choice.

However, that will only make the problem worse. Although voter turnout is noted, its a subject that is mostly of interest to political wonks. The mainstream media is not going to pay attention to the fact that a large number of people didn't turn out to vote in 2016. That won't be connected with people's frustration at the system.

On the other hand, if an unprecedented number of people were to vote for a third party candidate - that could not ignored as easily. They would have to report that and explain that. Even if that candidate had no chance of actually wining, the opposition that he or she represents would be recognized - it would send a message.

If you are concerned about civil liberties, you should vote. You should vote for someone who claims to support positions that you agree with, and that you don't think is lying to you about what they represent. If that means voting for someone who has no chance of winning, so be it. If that means voting for someone who is, on the balance, more radical than you'd like, thats OK too. Voting is one of the few real things that you can do that has a consequence. You should use that power and use it well.